NYT Plays Games with MH-17 Tragedy

Exclusive: There was a time when The New York Times showed some skepticism toward the words of the U.S. government but those days are long gone, as the Times sinks even deeper into the propaganda swamp with an editorial playing games with the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 tragedy, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

In its single-minded propaganda campaign against Russia, The New York Times has no interest in irony, but if it had, it might note that some of the most important advances made by the Dutch Safety Board’s report on the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 came because the Russian government declassified sensitive details about its anti-aircraft weaponry.

The irony is that the Obama administration has steadfastly refused to declassify its intelligence information on the tragedy, which presumably could answer some of the key remaining mysteries, such as where the missile was fired and who might have fired it. While merrily bashing the Russians, the Times has failed to join in demands for the U.S. government to make public what it knows about the tragedy that killed 298 people on July 17, 2014.

A Malaysia Airways' Boeing 777 like the one that crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. (Photo credit: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland)

A Malaysia Airways’ Boeing 777 like the one that crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. (Photo credit: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland)

In other words, through its hypocritical approach to this atrocity, the Times has been aiding and abetting a cover-up of crucial evidence, all the better to score some propaganda points against the Russ-kies, the antithesis of what an honest news organization would do.

In its editorial on Thursday, The Times also continues to play on the assumed ignorance of its readers by hyping the fact that the likely weapon, a Buk surface-to-air missile, was “Russian-made,” which while true, is not probative of which side fired it. Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, is armed with Russian-made weapons, too.

But that obvious fact is skirted by the Times highlighting in its lead paragraph that the plane was shot down “by a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile,” adding: “Even Russia, which has spent much of those [past] 15 months generating all kinds of implausible theories that put the blame on Ukraine, and doing its best to thwart investigations, has had to acknowledge that this is what happened.”

Though some misinformed Times’ readers might be duped into finding that sentence persuasive, the reality is that Russia has long considered it likely that a Buk or other anti-aircraft missile was involved in downing MH-17. That’s why Russia declassified so many details about its Buk systems for the Dutch investigation something governments are loath to do and the Russian manufacturer issued a report on the likely Buk role last June.

But the Times pretends that the Russians have now been cornered with the truth, writing that Russia “now argues that the fatal missile was an older model that the Russian armed forces no longer use, and that it was fired from territory controlled by the Ukrainian government.” Yet, much of that information was provided by the Russian missile manufacturer a long time ago and was the subject of a June press conference.

Blinded by Bias

If the Times editors weren’t blinded by their anti-Russian bias, they also might have noted that the Dutch Safety Board and the Russian manufacturer of the Buk anti-missile system are in substantial agreement over the older Buk model type that apparently brought down MH-17.

Almaz-Antey, the Russian Buk manufacturer, said last June that its analysis of the plane’s wreckage revealed that MH-17 had been attacked by a “9M38M1 of the Buk M1 system.” The company’s Chief Executive Officer Yan Novikov said the missile was last produced in 1999.

The Dutch report, released Tuesday, said: “The damage observed on the wreckage in amount of damage, type of damage, boundary and impact angles of damage, number and density of hits, size of penetrations and bowtie fragments found in the wreckage, is consistent with the damage caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 BUK surface-to-air missile.”

Also on Tuesday, the manufacturer expanded on its findings saying that the warhead at issue had not been produced since 1982 and was long out of Russia’s military arsenal, but adding that as of 2005 there were 991 9M38M1 Buk missiles and 502 9M38 missiles in Ukraine’s inventory. Company executives said they knew this because of discussions regarding the possible life-extension of the missiles.

Based on other information regarding how the warhead apparently struck near the cockpit of MH-17, the manufacturer calculated the missile’s likely flight path and firing location, placing it in the eastern Ukrainian village of Zakharchenko, a few miles south of route H21 and about four miles southwest of the town of Shakhtars’k, a lightly populated rural part of Donetsk province that the Russians claim was then under Ukrainian government control.

Calculation by the Buk manufacturer showing the likely area of the launch that took down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

Calculation by the Buk manufacturer, Almaz-Antay, showing what it considered the likely area of the launch that took down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

The area is about three miles west of the 320-square-kilometer zone that the Dutch report established as the likely area from which the missile was fired. In July 2014, control of that area was being contested although most of the fighting was occurring about 100 kilometers to the north, meaning that the southern sector was more poorly defined and open to the possibility of a mobile system crossing from one side to the other.

Almaz-Antay CEO Novikov said the company’s calculations placed the missile site in Zakharchenko with “great accuracy,” a possible firing zone that “does not exceed three to four kilometers in length and four kilometers in width.” However, Ukrainian authorities said their calculations placed the firing location farther to the east, deeper into rebel-controlled territory.

Thus, the importance of the U.S. intelligence data that Secretary of State John Kerry claimed to possess just three days after the plane was shot down. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on July 20, 2014, Kerry declared, “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”

But the U.S. government has released none of its evidence on the shoot-down. A U.S. intelligence source told me that CIA analysts briefed the Dutch investigators but under conditions of tight secrecy. None of the U.S. information was included in the report and Dutch officials have refused to discuss any U.S. intelligence information on the grounds of national security.

In the weeks after the shoot-down, I was told by another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts that they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government tied to one of the oligarchs was responsible for the attack, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine whether this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.

Last October, Der Spiegel reported that German intelligence, the BND, concluded that the Russian government was not the source of the missile battery that it had been captured from a Ukrainian military base but the BND blamed the ethnic Russian rebels for firing it. However, a European source told me that the BND’s analysis was not as conclusive as Der Spiegel had described.

Prior to the MH-17 crash, ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine were reported to have captured a Buk system after overrunning a government air base, but Ukrainian authorities said the system was not operational, as recounted in the Dutch report. The rebels also denied possessing a functioning Buk system.

Who Has These Buks?

As for whether the 9M38 Buk system is still in the Ukrainian military arsenal, government officials in Kiev claimed to have sold their stockpile of older Buks to Georgia, but Ukraine appears to still possess the 9M38 Buk system, based on photographs of Ukrainian weapons displays. In other words, Ukrainian authorities appear to be lying about this crucial point.

It should be noted, too, that just because Russia no longer deploys the outmoded Buks doesn’t mean that it might not have some mothballed in warehouses that could be pulled out and distributed in a sub rosa fashion, although both the Ukrainian rebels and Russian officials deny this possibility. According to the Ukrainian government, the rebels were only known to have shoulder-fired “manpads” in July 2014 and that weapon lacked the range to destroy a civilian airliner flying at 33,000 feet.

Yet, rather than delve into this important mystery, The New York Times’ editorial simply repeats the Western “group think” that took shape in the days after the MH-17 tragedy, that somehow the rebels shot down the plane with a Buk missile supplied by Russia. The other possibility that the missile was fired by some element of the Ukrainian security forces was given short-shrift despite the fact that Ukraine had moved some of its Buk batteries into eastern Ukraine presumably to shoot down possible Russian aircraft incursions.

As described in the Dutch report, this Ukrainian concern was quite real in the days before the MH-17 shoot-down. On July 16 just one day before the tragedy a Ukrainian SU-25 jetfighter was shot down by what Ukrainian authorities concluded was an air-to-air missile presumably fired by a Russian warplane patrolling the Russia-Ukraine border.

Thus, it would make sense that the Ukrainian air-defense forces would have moved their Buk batteries close to the border and would have been on the lookout for possible Russian intruders entering or leaving Ukrainian air space. So, one possibility is that a poorly organized Ukrainian air-defense force mistook MH-17 for a hostile Russian aircraft high-tailing it back to Russia and fired.

Another theory that I’m told U.S. intelligence analysts examined was the possibility that a rogue Ukrainian element linked to a fiercely anti-Russian oligarch may have hoped that President Vladimir Putin’s official plane was in Ukrainian air space en route home from a state visit to South America. Putin’s jet and MH-17 had very similar markings. But Putin used a different route and had already landed in Moscow.

A side-by-side comparison of the Russian presidential jetliner and the Malaysia Airlines plane.

A side-by-side comparison of the Russian presidential jetliner and the Malaysia Airlines plane.

A third possibility, which I’m told at least some U.S. analysts think makes the most sense, was that the attack on MH-17 was a premeditated provocation by a team working for a hard-line oligarch with the goal of getting Russia blamed and heightening Western animosity toward Putin.

Obama’s Secrets

But whatever your preferred scenario whether you think the Russians or the Ukrainians did it the solution to the mystery could clearly benefit from President Barack Obama doing what Putin has done: declassify relevant intelligence and defense information.

One might think that the Times’ editors would be at the forefront of demanding transparency from the U.S. government, especially since senior U.S. officials rushed out of the gate in the days after the tragedy to put the blame on the Russians. Yet, since five days after the shoot-down, the Obama administration has refused to update or refine its claims.

Earlier this year, a spokesperson for Director for National Intelligence James Clapper told me that the DNI would not provide additional information out of concern that it might influence the Dutch investigation, a claim that lacked credibility because the Dutch investigation began within a day of the MH-17 crash and the DNI issued a sketchy white paper on the case four days later.

In other words, the initial U.S. rush to judgment already had prejudiced the investigation by indicating which way the United States, a NATO ally of the Netherlands, wanted the inquiry to go: blame the Russians. Later, withholding more refined intelligence data also concealed whatever contrary analyses had evolved within the U.S. intelligence community after Kerry and the DNI had jumped to their hasty conclusions.

Yet, The New York Times took note of none of that, simply piling on the Russians again and hailing a dubious online publication called Bellingcat, which has consistently taken whatever the U.S. propaganda line is on international incidents and has systematically screwed up key facts.

In 2013, Bellingcat’s founder Eliot Higgins got the firing location wrong for the sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria. He foisted the blame on Bashar al-Assad’s forces in line with U.S. propaganda but it turned out that the missile’s range was way too short for his analysis to be correct. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case.”]

Then, earlier this year, Higgins fed Australia’s “60 Minutes” program wrong coordinates for the location of the so-called “Buk-getaway video” in eastern Ukraine. Though the program treated Higgins’s analysis as gospel, the images from the video and from the supposed location clearly didn’t match, leading the program to engage in a journalistic fraud to pretend otherwise. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A Reckless Stand-upper on MH-17.”]

But the Times’ editorial board simply gushed all over Bellingcat, promoting the Web site as if it’s a credible source, writing that the Dutch report “is consistent with theories advanced by the United States and Ukraine as well as evidence collected by the independent investigative website Bellingcat.com, which hold that the fatal missile was fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine.”

The Times then distorted the findings of the Buk manufacturer to present them as somehow contradicted by the Dutch report, which substantially relied on the declassified information from the manufacturer to reach roughly the same conclusion, that the missile was an older-model Buk.

However, without irony, the Times writes, “This fact is not something Russians are likely to learn; Russian television has presented only the Kremlin’s disinformation of what is going on in Ukraine and, for that matter, Syria. Creating an alternative reality has been a big reason for President Vladimir Putin’s boundless popularity among Russians. He sees no reason to come clean for the shooting down of the Boeing 777.”

Yet, the actual reality is that Russia has provided much more information and shown much greater transparency than President Obama and the U.S. government have. The Dutch report also ignored one of the key questions asked by Russian authorities in the days after the MH-17 shoot-down: why did Ukraine’s air defense turn on the radar used to guide Buk missiles?

But the Times remains wedded to its propaganda narrative and doesn’t want inconvenient facts to get in the way. Rather than demand that Obama “come clean” about what the U.S. intelligence agencies know about the MH-17 case, the newspaper of record chooses to mislead its readers about the facts.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

60 comments for “NYT Plays Games with MH-17 Tragedy

  1. Emerick
    October 24, 2015 at 18:03

    How would someone mistake MH-17 for Putin’s plane based on similar markings? Since MH-17 was flying at 33,000 feet, a person on the ground wouldn’t be able to identify it based on its markings.

  2. Antidyatel
    October 18, 2015 at 22:42

    Still no news about the full transcript of black boxes, isn’t it?
    Look at reconstructed animation by DSB. Rocket engine is working and leaves plume up till explosion. Strange blunder assuming maximum 20 seconds if engine propulsion, rocket max speed of 860m/s and nearly 30 km distance to travel from Snezhnoe.

  3. Archie1954
    October 17, 2015 at 22:36

    Even Americans, as ignorant as they are on the whole, don’t trust their own MSM. They have simply been lied to, one time too many!

  4. MrK
    October 17, 2015 at 11:55

    Just a few questions:

    1) Is it possible that a Buk missile was attached to an SU-25 or SU-27 fighter?

    Obviously not standard issue, but as part of a special operation? All of the Right Sector has the smell of NATO and Gladio all over it. Their antecedents, the OUN-M in WWII, had very close ties to German Military Intelligence, the Abwehr of Admiral Canaris. After WWII, much of Gehlen’s intelligence network was absorbed by the OSS/CIA. At the same time, the British Special Operations Executive or SOE morphed into Gladio.

    2) Other than ‘national security’, why hasn’t the US released it’s own satellite data? Or why hasn’t the Ukrainian government released the tapes of the conversation between ground control in Kiev, and the MH-17 pilots?

    3) Why was MH-17 flying over the Ukraine-Russia border in the first place – it wasn’t on the official flight path, a path taken by maybe a dozen flights before, which leads of the Sea of Azov, not the Russian-Ukrainian border, for obvious reasons. Who diverted them – the pilots themselves, or Ukrainian ground control?

  5. wtf
    October 17, 2015 at 10:42

    Russia posses 9M38M1 missiles or to be more precise owned them at least in 2013 or may 2015.

  6. Rob
    October 17, 2015 at 04:08

    1 All the indisputable evidence are presently on the crime scene, ie, the MH17 fuselage.
    There are NO bow-tie marks on it showing, without doubt, that the missile was an old model Buk 9M38 which Russia had decommissioned in 2011. The Buk manufacturer Almaz-Antey and the DSB are both in concert on this. Ukraine still uses the Buk 9M38 missiles, but not Russia.

    2 So why were there a few bow-tie fragments found in the cockpit remains to indicate that perhaps it was the newer Buk missile, the 9M38M1 which Russia has? This looks like a classic Bre-X Gold fraud case when the geologist added specks of gold on drill cores to defraud investors. This deception is called “Salting” in the mining industry and could only be done by the guilty party, definitely NOT by Almaz-Antey or by Russia.

    There may be a few bow-tie fragments “salted” BUT this does not help the guilty party as there are no bow-tie strike marks on the MH17 fuselage at all. No one can change this ‘smoking gun’ evidence.

    3 On 13 Oct, Mikhail Malyshevsky, adviser to head engineer of the Buk missile system producer Almaz-Antey, said during a briefing in Moscow that “Today we can say for sure that if the Boeing was downed with a Buk missile, then it was with a 9M38 from the populated area of Zaroschenskoye,” ( see http://sputniknews.com/world/20151013/1028437455/mh17-russia-report-almaz-antey.html).

    4 The Ukrainian rebels could not possibly launch a Buk 9M38, even if they had hijacked one, as they do not have the complicated radar expertise to do so.

    5 The Dutch Safety Board report is also flawed as it did not include these 3 pieces of critical evidence:

    i) Voice and data recordings from the MH17 Black Boxes, all withheld by the UK.

    ii) Voice and radar recordings from the Kiev ATC to show why it instructed MH17 to change course from its normal flight path over the Sea of Azov, next to the Crimea, to the L980 flight path, 300 n miles north and over the war-zone, which the last ten MH flights prior to 17 July 2014, had avoided.

    Additionally, the ATC Radar recording may show whether there was a Su-25 near MH17 at the material time, as reported by Russian radar.

    iii) Satellite images from the US to show where the missile was shot from. (still withheld by the United States).

    Until we have unequivocal transparency and honest dealings, it is an insult to the memory and the families of the 298 innocent people who died on 17 July 2014, while the Times continues to play games.

    • F. G. Sanford
      October 17, 2015 at 06:32

      If the “They thought it was Putin’s plane” story is to hold water, then the target identification had to be visual. That couldn’t be done from the ground without ATC assistance, and the Buk radar couldn’t determine that either. So, if that story works, it means a pilot in an Su-25 identified the plane. I’m sticking with the air to air shoot down with a 30mm cannon until conclusively proven otherwise.

      • Rob
        October 17, 2015 at 12:13

        @ F.G. Sanford: You could be right with the “with the air to air shoot down with a 30mm cannon” paradigm because there are also round holes on the MH17 fuselage. Watch the youtube video below at 4.39 minutes :


        But we will never know the truth until the Criminal Investigation Team subpoenas the the voice and radar recordings from the Kiev ATC ( unlike to elicit any response) and or get the satellite images from the US military (which is like getting water out of rock) despite John Kerry’s ‘bullhorn’ promise to do so.

  7. Abe
    October 16, 2015 at 20:21

    National Public Radio has joined the NYT in playing games with the MH-17 tragedy.

    Paul Craig Roberts reports that NPR gave a misleading account of the Dutch Safety Board report findings on the MH17 crash:

    “the misrepresentation of the Dutch report by Western media, such as NPR, is so outrageous as to make the media the story and not the report.

    For example, I just heard NPR’s Moscow correspondent, Corey Flintoff, say that the missile that hit the airliner was fired by Ukrainian separatists who lack the technical ability to operate the system. Therefore, the missile had to have been fired by a Russian.

    There is nothing in the Dutch report whatsoever that leads to this conclusion. Flintoff either is incompetent or lying or he is expressing his view and not the report’s conclusion.

    The only conclusion that the report reaches is one that we already knew: if a Buk missile brought down the airiliner, it was a Russian-made missile. The Dutch report does not say who fired it.

    Indeed, the report places no blame on Russia, but it does place blame on Ukraine for not closing the airspace over the war area. Attorneys have stated in response to the report that families of those killed and the Malaysian airline itself are likely to file lawsuits against Ukraine for negligence.

    Of course, there was nothing of this in Flintoff’s report.”

    NPR’s Distortions About the MH-17 ‘Report’
    By Paul Craig Roberts

    • Kiza
      October 16, 2015 at 22:58

      Hello Abe,

      Let me point out that if the Dutch-lead report says the the missile was manufactured by Russia, this by itself may be a deliberate misinterpretation of fact. The old model BUK system, used by Ukraine was manufactured by Soviet Union, not by Russia. It may have been assembled in the Russian Republic of the USSR from the parts manufactured in Russia and other USSR republics, but it is not true that it was manufactured in Russia because Russia did not exist as a country. The new model BUK system is manufactured in Russia and only in Russia. Therefore, a statement by the Dutch-lead report that the missile was manufactured in Russia directly implies that it is the new, Russian model of BUK which shot down the airliner.

      I think it is obvious that this whole affair uses one simple propaganda technique called “the facts creep”. The biased official report makes this implication which is not correct, then the Dutch leader of the investigation with links to the intelligence-security US-EU establishment adds his own allegations against Russia (beyond the report), then the media take all this and spin the facts a little further by adding conclusions not in the report. If one day the whole tower of lies happens to blow up, then they just blame the previous party in the chain of lies for being mislead “a little”. This is a great method for making a big lie out of a chain of smaller lies.

  8. Abe
    October 16, 2015 at 18:45

    The NYT certainly isn’t the only MSM outlet playing games.

    Today, the Huffington Post proclaimed that “Bellingcat has conducted many groundbreaking investigations, including uncovering evidence that a Russian-made missile shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, long before an official Dutch investigation reached the same conclusion.”

    According to Higgins, “It’s gone better than I could have imagined. We’ve done a lot of work that has helped the criminal investigation into MH17, and I’ve been interviewed twice by [the investigators] about our work. ”

    The Citizen Journalists Challenging Assad And Putin’s Story Of War
    By Charlotte Alfred

  9. Abe
    October 16, 2015 at 18:18

    The Paris Match photos, whose author is anonymous, look unlike any real photos or stills from a video: the back of the truck’s white cabin and the telephone number are sharp and are of high picture quality, but at the same time, in one of the photos, you can’t even see the shape of Buk’s wheels, Buk is of low picture quality and fuzzy everywhere you look. The dashboard reflection is not identical in both photos.

    They were made by a Photoshop professional from a combination of photos: photo of a truck, a background photo showing the area inside Donetsk city, a still from a video of a Russian Buk “3×2,” which was uploaded to the internet in June 2014, and other photos. The photo manipulator’s plan was to create “evidence” showing that Buk was deep inside Eastern Ukrainian rebel’s stronghold, the Donetsk city, and that this Buk was specifically from the Russian Federation and was not one of the 60 Buk launchers that Ukraine has in the arsenal. He did this by copying the Buks labels and side skirt from the publicly available photo of the Russian Buk “3×2” and using them in his photos.

    The photographer of the Torez photo made it while lying or kneeling in some unnatural position, most likely to show as much grass between the photographer and the road (to hide as much road as possible), to create a background image to which it would be easy to add vehicles from other photos. Even though the photo itself is of relatively high resolution, the Buk, truck, and UAZ are located at a significant distance, and they could have been easily added with Photoshop. The photo was allegedly taken around 12:00 or later and shows a bright sunny day, but on the day when it was allegedly taken (July 17, 2014), the weather at this time in Torez was mostly cloudy.

    Snizhne photo is of low picture quality, of a low and non-standard resolution and was resized or cropped. The Buk is at significant distance and takes up a relatively small amount of pixels. These facts, and the way the Buk looks as if it is about to hit a curbstone, suggest that it could have been easily photoshopped.

    A self-proclaimed investigative-journalist named Eliot Higgins (Bellingcat) uses the Paris Match photo to prove that a Russian Buk “3×2” was in Ukraine because of the Buk’s labels and side skirt. The idea to compare the side skirt came from someone nicknamed “Mark Brown,” whose Twitter account and posts show that he has links to Ukraine.

    The Western mainstream media in turn uses Bellingcat’s work regarding the fake Paris Match photo as proof that Russia sent a Buk to Ukraine.

    The official Joint Investigation Team has the Paris Match photo on the team’s site. They also showed it in their “call for witness” video, released in 2015, along with Torez and Snizhne photos. Since they “don’t see” anything wrong with the Paris Match photos, this means that the official investigation is not objective.

    MH17: Fake photo was used to falsely claim there was a Russian Buk in Ukraine
    By Sergey Mastepanov

  10. Abe
    October 16, 2015 at 18:05

    The Dutch Safety Board (DSB) conclusion on the missile detonation which caused the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 is based on a report of the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR), based in Amsterdam. The 66-page NLR report can be found as an appendix to the main DSB report. Combined in their release this week, the two Dutch organizations and the two Dutch reports claim that a Russian-made Buk missile of the 9M38 model series, armed with warhead type 9N314M, was fired at MH17, exploding to the left of the aircraft at about two metres from the cockpit. The blast and shrapnel spray from this detonation, the two Dutch reports claim, caused the break-up of the aircraft in the air, and the deaths of all on board.

    From the evening of the crash day, July 17, 2014, western government officials and media reporters have blamed Russia for manufacturing the missile, ordering it fired, and causing the crash. They are now citing the Dutch reports as proof of the initial assignment of blame. This is despite the DSB’s reluctance to do so in its report; and despite the refusal to date of Australian and Dutch police, coronial investigators and pathologists to release the detailed autopsy evidence they have gathered of the shrapnel which struck the aircraft and the bodies of those on board. According to the DSB report, shrapnel killed the crew in the cockpit, and three pieces of shrapnel, characteristic of warhead type 9N314M , were found in the bodies of the pilot and co-pilot. No crew member or passenger in the aircraft, outside the cockpit, was struck by this shrapnel, according to the DSB.

    On these three pieces of metal hangs the case for a Buk missile detonation as the cause of crash; the cause of death; and Russian culpability for the shoot-down. But a search through the DSB records, and through the technical reports of shrapnel impact and blast simulation on which the DSB has based its conclusions, together with interviews with spokesmen for the Dutch investigations, finds that the only evidence for the source of the three metal fragments turns out to be a classified military secret of the Dutch Ministry of Defence.

    Questioned today for the source of its evidence for the firing of the 9M38 or 9M38M1 model missile , and for the detonation of the 9N314M warhead, NLR spokesman Jan Venema said the NLR will not disclose how, and from what source, it had obtained the missile and warhead data for its detonation and shrapnel testing, and for the conclusions it has reported. According to the LNR text (page 46), LNR relied on an Almaz-Antei “representative” for the information that “only the 9N314M warhead contains bowtie fragments”.

    Almaz-Antei has reported several times in public this week that the 9N314M warhead cannot be operated from the 9M38 missile series. The two cannot be connected electronically, according to the missile manufacturer. In addition, Almaz-Antei has confirmed that in the warhead types containing the distinctive shrapnel — the Russians are calling this “I-beam”, the Dutch “bowties” and “butterflies” — there are approximately 7,800 elements in total. Of this number, not less than a third, or 2,600 fragments, are of the bowtie type, again according to the manufacturer. If the DSB and its consultant analysts are all telling the truth, the identification of just three in the cockpit crew’s bodies, and one other fragment in the cockpit wreckage, is inexplicable. Almaz-Antei says its computer modelling, as well as its physical blast simulation, make this impossible.

    Dutch Reports on MH17 Have Mistaken Buk Missile Model, Warhead Type — The Footnote Which Puts the Boot to Buk
    By John Hellmer

  11. Abe
    October 16, 2015 at 13:54

    The Bellingcat disinformation site, the Washington and NATO appointed junkyard dog, is barking even louder so you can’t hear the dog still not barking.

    Bellingcat’s latest exercise in obfuscation:

    The new article leans heavily on one of Bellingcat’s favorite sources of obfuscation: Novaya Gazeta, the anti-Putin propaganda factory known for its lurid accusations of Russian “crimes” in Ukraine.

    Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev owns only 10% of Novaya Gazeta, and the paper’s staff controls 51% of shares.

    Novaya Gazeta is 39% owned by Russian oligarch Alexander Yevgenievich Lebedev. Since 2013, Lebedev is also the head of the “investigative department” of the newspaper.

    Lebedev also is owner of four UK newspapers with son Evgeny Lebedev: the London Evening Standard, The Independent, The Independent on Sunday, and the i Newspaper, plus the London Live TV channel.

    An notable example of Novaya Gazeta propaganda on Ukraine is a September 1, 2014 article alleging that Russian soldiers had invaded Ukraine and suffered serious casualties.

    The Novaya Gazeta article was immediately translated into English and appeared online on 02 September in the Kyiv Post, a staunchly anti-Russian and pro-Western English language newspaper.

    The article claimed that on August 13, 2014 a “column” of 1,200 Russian soldiers was attacked with Grad rockets in Snizhne, resulting in 120 Russian dead and 450 wounded.

    Such a military exploit surely would have been celebrated by the Ukrainian forces, and the bodies of dead Russian soldiers would have been photographed and placed on display before the eyes of the world.

    Alas, as has happened so frequently in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, Russian invasions “seen” by the Ukrainians never quite manage to physically materialize.

    In fact, the Ukrainian military Anti-Terrorist Operation reports merely noted that Ukrainian aircraft attacked a “convoy” of over 100 units of “Russian military equipment” in Snizhne on 13 August, destroying one armored personnel carrier and two trucks. No Russian or Donetsk militia casualties were reported and no Ukrainian Grad rockets were mentioned in the account.

    There is no question that there have been casualties among the Russian volunteers fighting together with the Donetsk and Luhansk defense forces. However, despite the numerous instances of the Ukrainians “crying wolf,” thus far there has been no conclusive evidence a significant Russian invasion force.

    Nevertheless, Novaya Gazeta is the most frequently cited source in the anti-Russia propaganda report produced by the Atlantic Council.

    Eliot Higgins frequently Tweets about the awesomeness of Novaya Gazeta reporting.

    Higgins, a co-author of the Atlantic Council propaganda report, is only the second most frequently cited source in the Atlantic Council’s report.

    But Higgins thinks he’s pretty awesome too.

  12. Abe
    October 16, 2015 at 13:33

    Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, appointed after the 2014 Maidan coup d’etat, labeled anti-Maidan protesters and pro-Russian federalists as “terrorists”.

    Avakov orchestrated efforts to crush popular opposition by means of mass killings carried out by the ultra-right. The first crackdown came after a secret April 12-13 visit to Kiev by CIA Director John Brennan.

    Avakov immediately issued a decree authorizing a new force of right-wing “patriotic” volunteer fighters directly armed by Ukraine’s Interior Ministry.

    The Ukrainian Interior Ministry’s Azov Battalion became infamous for alleged war crimes perpetrated during Kiev’s so-called “Anti-Terrorist Operation” (ATO) military offensive against eastern Ukraine.

    Collaborating with Washington and Western intelligence services waging a “hybrid war” on Russia, Avakov was central to the repeated claims of a “Russian invasion” of Ukraine in June 2014.

    Every one of these Western allegations has been evaluated and repeatedly shown to be false by professional journalists, independent researchers, and defense analysts.

    Unable to succeed in their efforts to demonize Russia, frustrated by international recognition of the legitimate concerns of the people of eastern Ukraine, and discredited by the exposure of neo-Nazi forces in the Ukrainian government and military, the Pentagon and western intelligence sought to achieve a breakthrough.

    A well-prepared Propaganda 3.0 social media disinformation campaign launched into high gear with the destruction of Malaysia Airlines MH-17, starting with a video released by Avakov via his Facebook page.

    The Pentagon and Western intelligence intensified their disinformation campaign in 2015.

    Using a Propaganda 3.0 swarming strategy, disseminating the very same fabrications via an online army of Internet “users” who “share content” that is “verified” by fake “fact checkers” such as Eliot Higgins (pseudonym Brown Moses) and his Bellingcat disinformation site.

    Bellingcat has promoted its “Forensic Analysis of Satellite Images” using digital imagery from DigitalGlobe and technology from Google, companies with extensive ties to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

    Bellingcat is the dog that barks so you don’t notice the dog still not barking.

  13. Abe
    October 16, 2015 at 13:16

    The pdf of the Dutch Safety Board report on the MH17 Crash is secured. However, if you open the report in your web browser, you can easily select and copy text for analysis and commentary.

    Section 5 of the DSB report concerns”The Situation in the Eastern Part of Ukraine and Signals for Civil Aviation”.

    Section 5.5 addresses “Reports in the media related to possible available weapons capability”. This section, and the DSB report in general, entirely limits its concern to the weapons capability of “armed groups that were fighting the Ukrainian government in the eastern part of Ukraine”. Operations of the Ukrainian armed forces, particular the Ukrainian Air Force, are not subject to scrutiny.

    Section 5.5 (pages 187-188) of the DSB report states the following:

    “In the months prior to 17 July, reports also circulated in the media (including social media) on the presence of weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, in the hands of the armed groups that were fighting the Ukrainian government in the eastern part of Ukraine.(98) For example armed groups seized the Ukrainian military air defence base A-1402 on 29 June 2014. Reports in the media indicated that, as a result, the armed groups had also been able to acquire a Buk system. The Ukrainian authorities, however, declared in the media that this system was not operational.(99,100)

    Western media reported that politicians, diplomats and military leaders expressed their concerns about weapons possibly being supplied by the Russian Federation to the armed groups and the build-up of Russian troops and equipment on the border with Ukraine. The involvement of the Russian Federation was denied in Russian media.

    The precise nature, scope and operational level of the military capacities of the various parties involved in the conflict around 17 July 2014 are not easy to establish by the Dutch Safety Board, even in retrospect. Although various media reported on the possible weapons capability in the area in the months prior to the crash, they do not constitute validated and verified information. In addition, based on open sources it is not possible to establish with certainty what equipment was involved and to what extent this equipment was operational.”

    Section 5.6 (pages 188-189) of the DSB report discusses “non-public sources pertaining to signals that could have indicated potential risks to civil aviation.” In effect, this section is a recitation of NATO allegations regarding Russian involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine:

    “it is clear that diplomats were extremely concerned about the military developments in the conflict area itself and on the Russian side of the border. The defence attachés of the various states held regular consultations on the situation in the eastern part of Ukraine, both as part of NATO and in a broader context.(101) They focused on military activities, especially those related to ground movements. In this respect diplomats took into account a possible invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops, which could result in major international tensions. They also discussed the armed groups fighting the Ukrainian government’s interest in eliminating air superiority, and the fact that they were becoming increasingly effective in doing so: ‘Every third sortie was downed.’ The information that Ukrainian authorities provided
    during a briefing with diplomats about the shoot-down of an Antonov An-26, possibly from inside the Russian Federation,(102) was also placed in this geopolitical and military-strategic perspective: what would the consequences be for Ukraine’s domestic political stability and what risks would this and the possible Russian involvement entail for security in Europe? The same applied to the information that NATO possessed concerning military developments and the build-up of weapons in and around the conflict area, as described by General Breedlove (see Section 5.4).

    During the aforementioned discussions, the diplomats present did not pose any questions about the safety of the airspace for civil aviation. Insofar as the Dutch Safety Board has been able to ascertain, the diplomats saw no reason, based on the content of the available information, to inform aviation authorities in their states about the situation in Ukraine. One of the sources stated: ‘ At no point whatsoever did we think about the fact that civil aircraft were flying over the area.’

    In response to such statements, made in interviews conducted by the Dutch Safety Board, diplomatic documents in which there were discussions about weapon systems on the ground and risks to civil aviation were expressly sought.”

    The DSB report then mentions a Ukrainian memorandum to the Organization for Security and Co‑operation in Europe (OSCE) from March 2014, the period of the Crimean status referendum:

    “The only relevant diplomatic document that the Dutch Safety Board was able to find is a memorandum about the situation in Crimea that Ukraine’s permanent representative to the OSCE issued to all OSCE delegations and cooperation partners. This memorandum, dated 7 March 2014, mentions, among other things, that Russian military troops had tried to take control of an air defence regiment, including the Buk missiles located there, belonging to the Ukrainian armed forces in Crimea. In this context the memorandum states: ‘The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine underlines that this kind of interference of the Russian servicemen in operation of the military unit of Ukraine causes real threat of illegal use of weapons against aircrafts in the airspace of Ukraine.’ However, this document does not explicitly mention risks to civil aviation either; it is also possible that the statement refers to risks to Ukrainian military aircraft. It must be emphasised that this memorandum refers to Crimea, not to the eastern part of Ukraine, and that it is dated the beginning of March, so before there was any armed conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine and over four months prior to the crash of flight MH17.”

    The 7 March 2014 Ukrainian memorandum to the OSCE reveals a possible intention to blame Russia for future “illegal” incidents involving Ukrainian air defense Buk missiles.

    The dating of the 7 March memorandum is highly significant because it corresponds with the escalation of the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

    Protests erupted in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine in the wake of the February 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev. Protesters occupied the Donetsk Regional State Administration (RSA) building from 1–6 March, before being removed by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).

    On 6 April, people rallied in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv to demand a status referendum similar to the one held in Crimea in March. In response to the widening unrest, the acting Ukrainian President, Oleksandr Turchynov, vowed to launch a major “anti-terror” operation against separatist movements in Donetsk Oblast. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, said on 9 April that the unrest in Donetsk Oblast would be resolved within forty-eight hours, either through negotiations or the use of force. Turchynov launched a military offensive operation against insurgents in the region on 15 April. MH17 was destroyed 3 months later.

  14. October 16, 2015 at 10:18

    Thanks, Bob.

    It’s in the mail.

  15. Peter Loeb
    October 16, 2015 at 05:28


    Robert Parry’s article and the perceptive comments added
    are of great importance especially if one is presenting
    evidence in court or doing vital detective work.

    In my own case, I spend less time worrying about what
    the NYT did or did not say. I have long been sceptical
    by nature of what “news” has been “placed” in
    the propaganda model. Occasionally I am jealous
    that I cannot be equally successful in placing etc.

    In sum, I do not believe the eternal truth of
    the propaganda machine to start with.

    Meanwhile I watch videos from Palestine of a
    twelve-year old boy being abducted, having
    his head smashed against a rock, placed in
    a choke hold by a soldier and finally released
    when his family pounds away at the soldier.

    Didn’t anyone notice?

    Or the somewhat older teen (perhaps early
    teens and most certainly a security threat!!)
    laying helplessly on the pavement and surrounded
    by four men unloading machine guns.
    by about four men with machine guns as he was
    shot. Of course, he died.

    (The 12-year old was rescued by his family.)

    Didn’t anyone notice that either?

    Death in Palestine. Again and again and again.

    But I digress. Ukraine is vital as well as are its
    citizenry and they are the subjects
    of these articles.

    The point to be made is that there is more going
    on in the world. It has gone on ever since
    Zionists invaded Palestine.

    Now that Secretary of State John Kerry has
    been dispatched to tell everyone (read Palestinians)
    to calm down, I am confident all readers can relax.
    If this were so, you have all fooled me indeed.

    —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • dahoit
      October 19, 2015 at 18:29

      Ah,Israel,the only ones to benefit from 9-11.
      Their ability to sway the political realm in the West is an astonishing and unique phenomenon in history,and so transparent only dupes and they themselves deny the obvious,but their control of the MSM leaves us mute.
      Notice the mostly msm silence on Trumps obvious truth that he let US down on 9-11,and should have been blamed for the complete breakdown in security.
      But the media made the sh*t a hero,how would they explain that?

  16. October 16, 2015 at 05:14

    I will try to post this information again without linking to my own work on the subject, so it doesn’t get moderated into the ether.

    Instead of drawing the conclusion that the most likely source of a Buk missile would probably be from the side proven to have lots, the Ukrainian side, most corporate media journalists have to attempted find one where probably none existed: among the separatists.

    Despite what many people seem to think the Dutch Safety Board is just that, and was never charged with conducting a criminal investigation into the perpetrators behind the downing of MH17.

    The criminal investigation is being conducted by an international team led by Dutch chief prosecutor Fred Westerbeke. For that team, trying to place a Russian Buk launcher at the scene of the tragedy is going to be a lot harder than trying to place a Ukrainian Buk launcher there.

    Despite claims by Elliot Higgins and his ilk, no hard evidence whatsoever of the presence Russian Buk launcher has been produced in the 15 months since MH17, yet there is plenty of evidence of the presence of Ukrainian Buk launchers in very close proximity to the scene of the resultant wreckage. If there was any hard evidence it defies belief that it hasn’t been produced, taking in the consideration the determination of the West to apportion blame directly on Putin..

    • Kiza
      October 16, 2015 at 19:32

      Excellent summary.

      But is this not real power – to defy facts, logic and common sense and convince Western masses of mindless consumers that a possible exception is an absolute rule, that he who had none of the missile systems was the most likely perpetrator.

      Likewise, I suggested a mind experiment: a situation which was opposite, some Ukrainian minority was fighting for freedom within Russia and Russia allowed a civilian airliner to fly over this war zone, which was subsequently shot-down, who do you think the Western Gov-Media complex would blame (no proof needed)?

      A lot of energy is being expanded to pull this one off, but this is a big stakes game of the name Siberia (sanction Russia, conquer Russia, appoint oligarch-gangsters as governors and exploit the riches). Siberia is the biggest piece of loot on the planet.

  17. John Delacour
    October 16, 2015 at 04:42

    You state that Almaz-Antey put forward “Zakharchenko”, “four miles south west of Shakhtars’k”, as a likely launch site! You mean ZAROSHCHENSKOE (Ukr. Zaroshchens’ke), which is 6.5 miles DUE SOUTH of Shakhtërsk (Ukr. Shakktars’k). Zakharchenko is the surname of the leader of Donetsk People’s Republic.

    • Consortiumnews.com
      October 16, 2015 at 08:23

      John, there are different transliterations of the town’s name. The Almaz-Antey map only shows the name in Ukrainian. I used the transliteration that appears in Google maps.
      Robert Parry

      • Andrey
        October 24, 2015 at 00:49

        Almaz-Antey map you present in the article shows the name in Russian, not Ukranian.
        Transliteration that appears in Google maps shows “Zaroshens’ke”. Why is it so hard to admit a little mistake pointed out by a number of posters? The names of the places differ as much as Boston and Philadelphia. Has nothing to do with transliteration whatever language is used.

  18. Alec
    October 16, 2015 at 00:31

    “There was a time when The New York Times showed some skepticism toward the words of the U.S. government ..”

    As we all know but seem reluctant or afraid to say that was before zionists decided to buy up the majority of popular media in the US and UK in order to control the opinion of the majority and to withdraw advertising from any MSM that did not trot out the “israel is wonderful” mantra.

    I cannot understand why so many commentators do not seem to understand that greater Israel has always been the likud objective and the removal / disintegration of Israel’s immediate neighbours using US money and US body bags is the plan before they launch an all out attack to drive others from the land “that God has promised them!”

    • Joe Tedesky
      October 16, 2015 at 01:13

      I often gets this wrong, but I think it’s call the Yinon Plan. I find this plan very much like Colonel Ralph Peter!s plan, of craving out a greater Israel Middle East rule. Do you think the rabble going on between Obama and Netanyahu is real? I have become so cynical on off days I think it’s all political theater. Although, I think there is something going on with all of the United States allies, and friends…we are running out of money. We bought, all our friends, and all our friends bought our politicians. Everyone is going to go on a diet!

      Carl Bernstein wrote a long and interesting article describing the CIA American news media relationship, which he began with this evolvement from the post WWII time period. I thought it was interesting coming from him, but surprisingly Mr Bernstein said quite a lot about his bosses and colleagues from that time period. With all that said, yes I would like to see at least a fair and balance, an objectivity to the official narrative. After 9/11, and seeing how well the American public was moved by our media to consent to war, by all means, is what we all must learn from. To always try and comprehend today’s events. The sad thing is, most of the people in our government and military are good people. It’s never the whole, as much as it is the few, but the corrupt few make it to positions of influence which controls the many. This ugly few needs a vigilante media, so us many are aware of what these few are up to.

      • F. G. Sanford
        October 16, 2015 at 04:29

        New York Times has agendas unseen.
        Tricky Dick never really came clean-
        There were Bernstein and Woodward who put in a good word
        But the CIA runs that machine!

        Bernstein has been tagged as a spy,
        Dr. Seuss and the Lorax would cry.
        Confound and tarnation, comment moderation
        Strikes again though I can’t fathom why!

        Just wait, if my version they print,
        Well, theres maybe a whiff of a hint.
        What the Grinch really stole went right down that hole
        Where Alice did her wonderland stint!

        • Bob Van Noy
          October 16, 2015 at 09:23

          I must sneak this in here so forgive me for interrupting this brilliant discussion, but my point is always that our woes go back to JFK and before… We cannot “move on” until a light is shined on that terrible deed. Thanks F.G. Sanford for the opening…

      • Joe Tedesky
        October 16, 2015 at 09:52

        Read this article. This is what too much money gets you.


  19. Joe Tedesky
    October 15, 2015 at 23:28

    I feel better now. Since reading in Mr Parry’s article here, how the Kiev Junta Regime had BUK missiles located in the eastern Ukraine region, this confirms what I have written about here before, about their location. Back in July 11 of 2014 moonofalabama.com and Webster Tarpley were talking about how the Keiv Nazi’s were, for some odd reason, pinned downed up against the Russian border of Eastern Ukraine. So, was this all intentional? Think about it. The Kiev thugs left a battered old BUK missile unit somewhere easy enough for the Donbass liberators to discover, and capture. Leaving these Donbass defenders an open invitation, for their audition to become Kiev’s false flag Patsy’s. Then make it appear, as though their Nazi BUK batteries are in a tight squeeze between the Donbass fighters, and the threaded Russian border. Tweak, the passenger planes flight path a little, and then fire away. BTW, has anyone ever heard again from the Spanish traffic controller Carlos? Remember him, he was the guy screaming foul, and as far as I know, he then disappeared. Also, could Malaysia being paying the price for their criticism of Israel and the U.S., or are they just that unlucky?

  20. Larry
    October 15, 2015 at 22:20

    The NYTimes for a very long time has had no credibility whatsoever on any issues or subjects advocated and preferred by American neocons. That’s because the Sulzberger family who own the NYTimes are American neocons. Though it’s Israel Uber Alles for the Sulzies and the rest of the American neocons, the heart of the problem is still the same as it ever was: Bloody Western Colonialism and Imperialism. Israel’s just a tool of those ‘isms, though a very nasty tool it has become.

  21. F. G. Sanford
    October 15, 2015 at 22:14

    If a plane hits a duck, well, that’s pretty bad luck, and it might bring an airliner down
    John Kerry insisted, “We knew and Captain Sully can swear that it’s true!”
    There are sanctions at stake, so make no mistake, better listen to old Moses Brown.
    No it wasn’t a duck, it was Vladimir’s Buk in the air where the airliner flew!

    That story of Mayzie, the bird who was lazy reminds us of tales told by Seuss
    She abandoned her nest, left Horton to test what surprises might hatch from the plot
    Clandestine sources and high tech resources can calculate things quite abstruse
    They got it on radar and satellites go far to prove where that missile was shot!

    A Cat that needs Belling insisted on telling us all that he’d figured it out
    Trajectory aimed it and John Kerry claimed it was proof of despicable deeds
    It had to be Putin that ordered the shootin’ he’s a miserable Grinch and a lout
    The Cat in the Hat with his social format on the internet followed the leads!

    He said quite so smugly, that images ugly abounded on Youtube and Facebook
    Those coronial finds boggled medical minds and the autopsies were all kept reclusive
    The concept is fissile, but injuries missile don’t imply what the pundits have mistook.
    They’re chunks penetrating so why are we waiting, let’s jump to a verdict conclusive!

    Among doctors, there’s rolling of eyes, about just what that verdict implies
    Their gazes are jaundiced, there isn’t much fond lust to settle the question just yet
    With sanctions at stake, let’s make no mistake, those Dutch boys would likely surmise
    The course that is prudent, enhanced by the truth bent, a little is nothing to fret!

    Now keep well in mind that the plane of the kind flying Putin looked rather Malaysian
    It was red, white and blue, and had stripes on it too, but the radar scope isn’t in color
    So, did Mayzie fly by in the stratosphere sky just conveniently on that occasion?
    She could radio back, “Get that missile on track, do it now or the prospect gets duller”!

    Horton would muse – how could she refuse, but Mayzie’s too lazy to do that!
    You’d need a safe bet – a Ukrainian jet – would be able to pick out that target…
    A satellite trace from its perch up in space couldn’t make out the stripes in that format
    In order to pick even Horton would stick to a visual fix from a cockpit!

    The Cat in the Hat was more choosy than that, and relied on Thing One and Thing Two.
    Not so the Cat Belling, his instinct was smelling the atmosphere coming from Kerry,
    Whose self-serving edict would certainly predict which flatulent story was true.
    The truth that behoves is whatever proves that the sanctions are not arbitrary!

    Kerry decided and no one derided, if it waddles and quacks its a Buk.
    Make, model and year make the verdict unclear, though the sanctions are still sacrosanct
    Four metal fragments and nothing else augments this story to which they have stuck
    Yertle the Turtle might find it a hurdle but Kerry can’t let those sanctions get tanked.

    Killing civilians and burning pavilions is all just a lark for Svoboda
    They’d sniper a crowd, but for cryin’ out loud, keep in mind they are always humane.
    Poroshenko and Yats are a couple of rats but they only sell out for a quota
    It takes a Rasputin or maybe a Putin to shoot down a passenger plane!

  22. October 15, 2015 at 21:40

    “The Times also continues to play on the assumed ignorance of its readers by hyping the fact that the likely weapon, a Buk surface-to-air missile, was “Russian-made,” which while true, is not probative of which side fired it.”

    Have The Times read the bar codes on the lion’s share of exploded hardware in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen et al, and apply this same logic. Then lets see the article about their indictment of the US government.

    October 15, 2015 at 20:45

    the NATIONAL RECON OFFICE[nro], always has satellites observing conflict zones. in some instances, geosynchronous satellites are deployed so that every event is observed in real time 24/7/365.

    if you read the literature, you will learn that the optics on these birds offers a resolution down to 1-2 centimeters.

    the NRO has all the photographic evidence of what happened on that day.

    that the press are presstitutes is confirmed that no “journalistic” entity cares to reveal that truth.

    in the cuban missile crisis, jfk presented mr k with the u2 photographs of the irbm emplacements.

    in this situation, obombya cannot present such evidence. because it confirms that the USA puppet regime launched the sam.

  24. Abe
    October 15, 2015 at 19:27

    In the light of recent developments including the publication of the Dutch Safety Board’s report, we bring to the attention of our readers an article first published on August 11, 2014.

    This article reviews the official Kiev government’s position concerning the downing of flight MH17, as confirmed by a statement of Ukraine’s Secret Service (SBU).

    According to the official SBU report entitled Terrorists and Militants planned cynical terrorist attack at Aeroflot civil aircraft , the Donetsk militia (with the support of Moscow) was aiming at a Russian Aeroflot passenger plane and shot down the Malaysian MH17 airliner by mistake. That’s the official Ukraine government story which has not been reported by the MSM.


    Media pundits did not want to risk their reputation in supporting Kiev’s official statement. They chose to remain silent. “Having built up the crash into a casus belli against Russia, the US media suddenly dropped the matter completely.” (Niles Williamson,. Cover-Up? Why Have the Media and Obama Administration Gone Silent on MH17? wsws.org, August 18, 2014).

    Nobody dared to actually accuse Russia of planning a false flag operation involving the shooting down of its own Aeroflot plane leading to the death of its own citizens, and then blaming it on Kiev.

    Moscow’s hidden agenda, according to the head of Ukraine’s intelligence service (SBU) was a “false flag” with a view to providing a justification for invading Ukraine in retribution to Kiev for having ordered the downing of a Russian passenger plane en route to Cyprus.

    As we recall, immediately after the MH17 plane crash on July 17, Secretary of State John Kerry and US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power pointed their finger at Moscow without a shred of evidence. In turn, the allegations directed against Russia were used to justify the imposition of sweeping economic sanctions against the Russian Federation.

    In the wake of this official and “authoritative” August 7 announcement by the Kiev regime, Obama, Kerry, Samantha Power et al, chose to remain mum. Nobody is accusing Russia anymore, because the Ukraine Secret Service’ official statement concerning the crash of Malaysian airlines MH17 is so outlandish that it does not even fit within the usual mold of media disinformation.

    The last substantive article in the New York Times on the MH17 crash and Russia’s alleged responsibility was on August 7, the day of the release of the report by Ukraine’s head of intelligence (SBU).

    Deafening silence. The Kiev intelligence report was not an object of commentary by the NYT. Instead the New York Times chose to justify the economic sanctions regime imposed on Russia by the US and the EU by

    “…accusing Russia of supplying the missiles that rebels used to shoot down a Malaysian jetliner on July 17, killing all 298 people aboard.” Andrew E. Kramer, and Neil MacFarquhar, “Putin Bans Some Imports as Payback for Sanctions”, August 7, 2014)

    Following the release of Ukraine’s official report on the crash of flight MH17, the US media as well as Western politicians chose to remain silent. Acknowledging Kiev’s official statement concerning MH17 would have opened up a diplomatic “can of worms” which would inevitably have backlashed. Not to mention the fact that the justification for the economic sanctions rested in part on Moscow’s alleged role in downing the Malaysian airliner.

    Another consideration was that real evidence pertaining to the crash of flight MH17 had emerged to the effect that the plane had most likely been shot down on the orders of the Kiev regime.

    Desperate MH17 “Intelligence” Spin. Ukraine Secret Service Contends that “Pro-Russian Rebels had Targeted a Russian Passenger Plane”. “But Shot Down Flight MH17 by Mistake”
    By Michel Chossudovsky

  25. ltr
    October 15, 2015 at 19:15


    [The exact address. The image is shocking, but not unexpected I suppose.]

  26. ltr
    October 15, 2015 at 19:13

    Important aside:


    Branko Milanovic ‏@BrankoMilan

    East European Nazism was always kind of “not a big deal’ in the US because, you know, they are anti-Communists.

    Bryan MacDonald @27khv

    Kharkov, Ukraine last night. The country’s 2nd largest city. This is the side the Eu/USA is backing

    5:20 AM – 15 Oct 2015

  27. natoistan
    October 15, 2015 at 18:41

    Il Punto di Giuliettto Chiesa – MH17: ecco il video del BUK ucraino


    • F. G. Sanford
      October 16, 2015 at 04:49

      Grazie per aver fatto quest’ illuminazione. Che cazzo! Siamo stati completamente fregati da questi bugiardi!

      This gentleman is saying that the media has recorded video evidence from 16 July of a Ukrainian Buk unit on station with the radar active in the exact location where NATO says the Russians fired the missile. He says, “We are all under a violent assault by this machine which is feeding us false information”.

  28. Abe
    October 15, 2015 at 18:27

    Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat are busy trying to “Higgins” the facts to make a case about “How the Dutch Safety Board Proved Russia Faked MH17 Evidence” https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/10/15/how-the-dutch-safety-board-proved-russia-faked-mh17-evidence/

    Higgins claims: “Russia claims its data retention policies resulted in the data not being stored, and this is examined in detail in section of the report. Regardless of regulations, and whether or not Russian followed them, it seems extremely odd that a few days after the downing of Flight MH17 Russian would use this data as part of its MH17 press conference, but not save a copy of the data for the Dutch Safety Board investigation, or the criminal investigation.”

    Higgins’ weasel words: “it seems extremely odd”.

    During the July 21, 2014 “Special Briefing on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space”, the comments by Lieutenant-General I. Y. Makushev, Chief of Staff of the Air Force of the Russian Federation, explicity refer to “objective control materials from the Rostov Aerial Center of the Joint Air Traffic Management System. The video presents the air control information on air situation in the region of Donetsk in the period from 17.19 P.M. to 17.25 P.M. Moscow time on July 17, 2014.”

    The Russians claimed to have video showing processed primary and secondary radar data, and that is exactly what they supplied to the Dutch Safety Board.

    There was nothing odd about it.

    To please his patrons, Higgins is trying to pull another fast one.

    The Russian Defence Ministry noted that “on the day of the accident the Ukrainian Armed Forces deployed 3 to 4 artillery battalions of Buk-M1 missile system not far from Donetsk” and and observed that MH17 was “inside the air defense battle zone of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ Buk-M1 missile system”.

    In addition to the civilian aircraft routed through the region, the Russian radar observed the presence of “military aircraft” in the airspace near MH17.

  29. martin
    October 15, 2015 at 17:52


    You need to update the said location of missile launch. It’s not Zacharchenko – he’s the Donbass leader. Looks bad to make these simple errors.

    • Consortiumnews.com
      October 15, 2015 at 18:14

      While it’s true that there is a leader by that name, there’s also a village that you can find on a map of Ukraine with the same name. If you look east from Donetsk, along H21, to the south. It’s also the site designated on the map released by the Buk manufacturer. Just like Washington or Columbus, a name can apply to both a city and a person.

      • martin
        October 15, 2015 at 22:23

        Thank you.

        My apologies, I stand corrected.


        • Brendan
          October 16, 2015 at 06:44

          Apologies for what? You were correct. Similar name but definitely different.

          • Martin
            October 16, 2015 at 11:17


            I’m an avid reader, writer and researcher and anally pragmatic about getting basic data correct as it avoids ridicule from much more powerful entities that may try to devalue the work being carried out here. However, my own experience has taught me that quite often simple mistakes can easily be made when dealing with complex issues, particularly in a foreign context and in a foreign language.

            Bearing that in mind,and given that I am only reading this article and haven’t been involved in the compilation of the data, I’m quite happy to accept this sites correction of my comment given that they are the ones putting it together and they have took the trouble to respond to my initial comment.

            Whether I was correct or not is irrelevant, what is important is that we have an independent source of current global affairs on vitally important global issues produced by professional people that cannot be found in ANY mainstream media outlet. I’m not going to nitpick about minor issues, I just want an accurate evaluation of what the fuck is happening in the world today.

          • Brendan
            October 16, 2015 at 17:25

            I understand what you’re saying but I don’t see any harm in drawing attention to details like that. Anyway, Robert Parry’s apparent inaccuracy is trivial compared to the widespread distortion of the facts of the MH17 tragedy that can be seen in the other media. The Dutch Safety Board report has some very serious flaws too that I’m sure will be highlighted fairly soon.

          • Martin
            October 16, 2015 at 19:21


            Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my comments here. We are obviously on the same side. I was thinking last night how fortunate we are to have a forum of this sort in light of the barrage of rubbish that dominates the airwaves. In that respect and in recognition of the integrity of this site I am firing off $100 to assist these people continue their work. Wish I could do more but it’s something.

      • Dmitri
        October 15, 2015 at 23:15

        Robert, the village name is spelled in English as Zaroshchenskoye (Зарощенское in Cyrillic alphabet), or Zaroshchens’ke (Ukrainian name spelled in English). This is the village shown on the map above, and the one in Almaz-Antey report.
        PS: I have a great respect to your website. Thank you very much!

      • John Delacour
        October 16, 2015 at 04:52

        You are wrong. See my previous post. The name of the settlement is ZAROSHCHENSKOE (Ukr. Zaroshchens’ke).
        See map here : http://bit.ly/1Lx0nLb
        Zacharchenko is close to Zaroshchenskoe as the crow flies but they area 20 km. drive apart.
        See map here: http://bit.ly/1LRECrz

      • Brendan
        October 16, 2015 at 09:19

        There are two places about 2 km apart:
        Zakharchenko (Захарченко) and Zaroshchenskoye (Зарощенское)

        All the reports on the alleged BUK launch location that I’ve seen give the name as Zaroshchenskoye or Zaroshchenske. However the launch location is unclear as that’s just an approximate calculation and it’s near a Ukrainiann base where BUK launchers were photographed from satellite, and there were no witnesses to the alleged firing of the BUK.

    • Joe L.
      October 15, 2015 at 18:18

      Wikipedia: “Zakharchenko, Shakhtarsk Raion”

    • Brendan
      October 15, 2015 at 18:28

      The alleged launch site is Zaroschenske.

  30. Joe L.
    October 15, 2015 at 17:47

    Just a thought but does anyone think that the MH-17 disaster is being overly publicized again when ironically EU sanctions will end by the end of 2015, which we are fast approaching? One thing that is encouraging, if the translation is true is that the head of the European Council or Union stating that the EU needs to stop letting Washington dictate its’ foreign policy and that everyone needs to start treating Russia with more respect. Did anyone else see anything about this?

  31. Joe L.
    October 15, 2015 at 17:32

    I think that papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post should be held up to historical scrutiny as to whether these “institutions of record” can truly be trusted. Case in point stories written by William L. Laurence (who was on the payroll of the NYT and the War Department) in 1945 denying the existence that radiation caused death in Japan after the dropping of the atomic bombs and claiming that anything that said otherwise was “Japanese Propaganda”. We could also examine how the New York Times was describing the “democratically elected” Mohammed Mossadegh at the time that the US/Britain pulled off a coup in Iran 1953 because he threatened BP (Operation AJAX). History should be the judge of these institutions and whether then can be trusted and if we use that as our yardstick then it is clear that they cannot.

    New York Times: “U.S. Atom Bomb Site Belies Tokyo Tales” (September 12, 1945):

    New York Times: “Mossadegh Plays with Fire” (August 15, 1953):

    • Joe L.
      October 15, 2015 at 17:41

      I think that I also watched a documentary by John Pilger where the New York Times was praising the coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002 and blaming all of the shootings etc. on him – which ultimately looked like the US Government actually instituted. John Pilger, I believe, said that the New York Times actually wrote a small retraction a year later or something to that effect. I just wonder if the reporting in the New York Times in 2002 would be similar to the reporting that we see today on Ukraine? Myself, I see similarities between the two coups from the shootings being solely blamed on the government to organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID being involved. I should see if I can find that 2002 article or if someone else feels compelled I would be interested to see how they twisted that situation?

  32. Drew Hunkins
    October 15, 2015 at 17:32

    Russia and/or the Eastern Ukrainian ethnic Russian fighters had absolutely no incentive to down a large civilian airliner. They would well know that a tragedy of that magnitude would be used as a massive propaganda weapon against them for decades.

    However, the pro-Western Ukrainian regime (which among others includes neo-Nazis and jihadi terrorists) would fully realize that virtually any tragic incident involving civilians on or near the war torn Ukrainian battlefields would likely be picked up by the Western press and splashed across the front pages of newspapers and be lead stories in U.S. and Euro media outlets for days with breathless reporting about the bloodthirsty Russians.

    Hence, it’s not unlikely that a false flag operation of sorts took place in order to pin the blame on the evil Russkies.

    In fact, just before the downing of MH-17 some Euro states were reticent over applying heavy sanctions on Russia; once the hysteria took over following the shoot down virtually all of Europe marched right along with Washington’s demands for heavy sanctions.

  33. Tom Welsh
    October 15, 2015 at 17:27

    “In other words, Ukrainian authorities appear to be lying about this crucial point”.

    As they have consistently lied about all crucial points, at all times. Anyone who believes anything that Kiev says will be quite unable to grasp the true situation.

    • alex
      October 16, 2015 at 13:42

      It is not a big surprise that Ukrainian government is lying: this seems to be their modus operandi and is more or less an expected behavior. But the fact that NYT is intentionally distorting the facts to suit a political agenda is much more important because it demonstrates that there are no journalistic standards anymore.

    • Kiza
      October 16, 2015 at 18:19

      Looking at the last couple of years, one could conclude that the Ukrainian post-coup government almost always lies, the US government and its MSM lie most of the time, whilst I am not aware of even one instance of the Russian Government lying (the Russian media are a mixed bag).

      Why is this important to notice. Because the US Gov and MSM have simply thrown off the shackles of need for credibility and just throw lies at the population whenever convenient Did this no-credibility attitude start with the attack on Iraq, when they got away with it so easily and with zero consequences? (Does anybody remember NYT Judy Miller, the only “journalist punished” for the lies about Iraq?) Do they think their own population has an extremely short memory? Do they consider that the population will always take their side, even when repeatedly lied to (patriots do not remember “errors” by their own government).

Comments are closed.